Re: Ready for beta yet? - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers
From | blacknoz@club-internet.fr |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Ready for beta yet? |
Date | |
Msg-id | mnet1.1128530776.27850.blacknoz@club-internet.fr Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Ready for beta yet? ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
List | pgadmin-hackers |
Dave, can you apply the following patch to the trunk ? This is the patch from Tomasz with blind corrections from my part. (not tested but should be ok, I'll use it to provide 1.4.0 beta1 package) Cheers, Raphaël ----Message d'origine---- >De: blacknoz@club-internet.fr >A: bogomips@post.pl >Copie à: dpage@vale-housing.co.uk, pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >Sujet: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready for beta yet? >Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:46:10 +0200 > > >Hi Tomasz, > >----Message d'origine---- >>Sujet: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready for beta yet? >>De: Tomasz Rybak <bogomips@post.pl> >>A: blacknoz@club-internet.fr >>Copie à: dpage@vale-housing.co.uk, pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >>Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:24:33 +0200 >> >>Dnia 03-10-2005, pon o godzinie 18:50 +0200, blacknoz@club-internet.fr >>napisa³(a): >>> Hi Tomasz, Dave and friends, >>> >>> first day to my new job and first day with an access to >>> the net since a long time. >> >>Good luck with new job. > >thanks, I'll try to keep the luck with me. :) > > >>> Tomasz, if you have some time to produce a merge between >>> what you provided and what I've fixed in official debian I'd >>> appreciate your help now I particularly think to the pgagent part >>> of the package which was not taken in consideration in 1.2.2 and >>> also the i18n relocation. >>> >> >>OK. >>Here are changes I made, applied to revision 4490. >>They are mostly changes made by you in official Debian package, >>but I made few additional. > >I had a quick look to your changes and it seems quite good, >although we must change some of them. Comments follow. > > >>For changelog, I put 1.4.0, because as I understand, we're trying >>to be ready for 1.4 release; I also put you name, as author of these >>changes. Feel free to put mine, if it's more appropriate. > >1.4.0 is ok but the package version should not be "-1". "-1" is >reserved for the first upload to official Debian. Unofficial packages >should never use version number greater or equal to 1. >For unofficial releases I generally use something like -0.1, -0.2,... >Take a look to the beginning of the changelog you will see what we >did with Andreas Tille before the first upload to Debian. That's a good >example (at least a functionnal one). >Concerning my name as the author, you should definitely put yours >(I'll correct this when providing a version for the svn [surely tomorrow]) >That's your work and the least we can do is that you get your name >somewhere to thank you for your contribution. > >>In rules, line 16, instead of >>_pgsql_inc:="/usr/include/postgresql -I./include" >>I put calling of pg_config; such behaviour was mentioned >>in changelog for libpq-dev 8.0.3-13 as more proper now. > >yeah, alright with this. In fact that's what I ripped from Ubuntu >for official 1.2.2. So, this one is definitely ok. > >>I also created new variable CPPFLAGS, where I put -I./include >>taken from _pgsql_inc. >>Previous situation resulted in warnings from configure script, >>because instead of putting -I into _pgsql_inc, it was passed >>to script as parameter, which wasn't sure what to do with that. >>pgAdmin was being built successfully, but I decided to get >>rid of this warning. >>I also had to change a bit calling configure script in line 50, >>and add CPPFLAGS to it. > >Ok, I'll take a look at this. Maybe we can definitely remove that >old -I./include after all... > > >>I also changed directory from ui to i18n line 106 of file rules. > >Perfect. > >>Last change I made is adding pgagent and i18n files in pgadmin3.install. > >Ok. We'll need a man page for pgagent in a near future if we >want to upload the things as is for Official Debian. >I don't know if anybody has began to work on this... Dave ? > >>Changelog in attachment. > >thanks for this diff. > >>One remark. >>Why there are slony3 and slony3-data package? >>Both depend on each other, and from my point of view there >>is no need for them both; maybe it's good idea to merge them. >>However, I'm not experienced in Debian packages creating, >>and I don't know why split occurred, so I'll leave these two >>as they are, without changes. So it's up to you to decide what >>to do. > >I bet you refer to pgadmin3 and pgadmin3-data depending on each >other. This was first introduced by Andreas Tille and discussed later >with Peter Eisentraut and Noèl Koethe. >In pgadmin3 package case, the reason for such a split is mainly due >to the size of the documentation we provide. >In this pgadmin3-data package we try to put all the nonarch dependent >files and actually the PostgreSQL documentation. As it takes quite >some disk space it's useful to split this for the following reason: >- one non-arch package used by all the Debian archs prevents >duplication of files and so save space on the Debian archive >- as it saves disk space it also saves bandwidth between mirrors >You may say that this not really interesting to do so for a compressed >size of approx 1,5 Mo but if you multiply this by a large number of >package it may be worth doing it. >Last but not least, as pgadmin3-data contains documentation it should >be named -doc and not -data, however, this documentation is usefull >and/or needed for pgadmin3 to run well so it's not pure documentation >and is mandatory to install. That's why we named it -data and not -doc >and made the two packages depend exactly on each other. >That's why it's like this and I won't change it. :) > >Thanks for your work, I'll provide an update tomorrow and ask Dave >or Andreas (the Pflug one) to commit it. > >Regards, >Raphaël > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >
Attachment
pgadmin-hackers by date: